So what do you envision for 4.0E D&D?

[Zub]

I seriously expect them to add some collectable component to the game. Nearly all of their Magic customers are repeat customers, while most D&D customers buy one or 2 core books. They are going to want to change that somehow. I predict that we'll *something* converted to a collectible some how. I'm not sure if it would be super-feats, rare spells, skill abilities or maybe even something completely different, but I'm sure thay have several people spending many many hours trying to come up with a viable idea that the gaming public will go along with or at least get a portion of the legions of Magic players to try.

 

[Halivar]

So, my summary is, M/F are bad because:
1) They usually add a lot of complexity to a system.
2) They are hard to balance.
3) They reduce modularity.
4) They increase the learning curve significantly.
5) They push us toward a point-based system.

Hope that helps.

Good post, Mercule. Certainly does help.

While I am a huge fan of properly used (read: not abused) M/F system, you have certainly convinced me it has no place in the core SRD rules.

Anything that is not added value to all players should not be core. That's the primary reason why I continue to believe psionics should never be core. I like them, and use them; but I know not everyone does.

That said, I think M/F can be reined in a bit by restricting points accruable through flaws, and pretty stringent guidelines on what M/F's are allowed.

I like what can be done right with M/F, and I'd like to see a M/F supplemental to D&D, but it doesn't need to be core.

 

[Mercule]

Good post, Mercule. Certainly does help.

<snip>

I like what can be done right with M/F, and I'd like to see a M/F supplemental to D&D, but it doesn't need to be core.

Thanks, glad to hear it.

I'm not a particular fan of M/F systems in general, but I agree that they can add quite a bit to some systems.

My main issue, in this case, is any variation on the idea that M/F doesn't work well with a Class/Level based system. I'd assume there is some way to do it and I've seen more improbably mechanics work. I'm just skeptical to the extreme and somewhat afraid of the fallout.

That said, so long as it isn't core SRD stuff, I don't really care what your group does. If you find something that works, I'd take a look at it and use it if I felt it value-added. I'm just a particularly hard sell on what constitutes added value from such a system.

 

[Jack Daniel]

All I want is for D&D 4e to return to its roots. If the game is more like "AD&D d20" and less like "Generic Fantasy d20" then I'll buy it with no qualms, and happily read the 4e books by the firelight of my burning 3.5 volumes.

 

[Halivar]

Oh yeah, also wanted to chime in and say it's time to relegate the monk to OA.

Oh yes, I so went there.

 

[DanMcS]

Combat skills (BAB and BDB) should be unified with the other skill system, maybe as Melee, Ranged, and Dodge. The mechanics are rather close to it already, take the final step and do it.

 

[Mercule]

Combat skills (BAB and BDB) should be unified with the other skill system, maybe as Melee, Ranged, and Dodge. The mechanics are rather close to it already, take the final step and do it.

I have to admit, I'm intrigued with this idea. It has a certain simple appeal. Still, I don't think it's as easy as it sounds. Nor are the mechanics as close as you make them sound.

There isn't currently any BDB equivalent. I'm not sure what impact adding one would have on the game. Might be no worse than the Defensive Bonuses by class level in WoT/CoC/Modern/etc. Or it could throw things dramatically out of whack.

BAB as a skill could be doable, but it reduces the granularity to "in-class" and "cross-class" as opposed to the three-tiered approach that exists now. Would you want to see the skill system revised? Or would you split it into Fighter/Ranger/Pal/Bar as in-class and everything else cross-class? Or would you move Cleric/Druid up, or Rogue/Bard? Myself, I'd move Rogue/Bard before Cleric.

Regardless, anything that is cross-class is pretty much going to be a Wizard in combat (BAB +11 at 20th level). Meanwhile, not only are the in-class combatants going to be somwhat better (+4 BAB at 1st, +23 BAB at 20th), even the cross-class combatants will be potentially better at 1st level (+2 BAB) than Fighter currently is.

Like I said, though, the concept has an appeal. If it could be done, and done well, I'd be receptive to it. I'd just want it playtested up the wazoo.

 

[ssampier]

4.0 will be split into two groups, the "We want more..." and the "That's enough". The "we want more" fans will be treated to bi-monthly products (with the seal of the official Wizards logo, of course) delievered to the subscriber's home (like a professional journal). The books will be available for monthly subscription charge of $100.

The 4.0 rulebook will be a streamlined version of the rules with only a short list of skills, feats, basic classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric), magic and combat . The "that's enough" group will buy the rulebook and be happy.

 

[DanMcS]

Like I said, though, the concept has an appeal. If it could be done, and done well, I'd be receptive to it. I'd just want it playtested up the wazoo.

Obviously. I've tried to get this to work for 3e, and it's just not doable without substantially reworking the system, and then it's not even a house-ruled 3e any more. Hence, my wish for it to be in 4e.

Off the top of my head, max out class skills at = level, cross-class at 1/2 level. Warrior types get the BABs as a class skill, everyone else as cross-class. BDB would take more substantial reworking, probably including armor as DR somehow, so that might not make it into 4e, though it would if I were in charge.

You might break it up more, similar to the way some people have broken down martial weapon proficiencies into groups (rather than 1 feat buying you one martial weapon proficiency, it buys you a category); ie you have a skill with simple weapons, simple ranged weapons, martial hacking things, martial polearmy things, martial smashing things, bows, etc etc. That may be too complicated though.

So you get warriors fighting with twice the BAB of others, and max skill ranks of +20 at 20th level (max skill = level? Thats way too obvious, they couldn't have done that in 3e). I know the reasoning for making max skill = level +3, but I find it spurious, it only matters at low levels, the system should be designed with the whole level range in mind.

If your rogue wants to be a killer combatant and get 3/4 BAB progression (equivalent), he should multiclass with fighter (which should be free among the base classes). Same with a priest. I think the cleric is a fighter/priest combo as-is, there should be a priest class that is similar to a wizard but casts divine.

Then, let there be a BSB (base spellcasting bonus? heh), and you can skill-out most of the entire system. Hey, Alternity did it, so Wizards isn't completely immune to the concept.

 

[Mercule]

I think the cleric is a fighter/priest combo as-is, there should be a priest class that is similar to a wizard but casts divine.

I'm of the same opinion, here. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll ever happen.